and I thought I had Bad tenants........

http://www.courts.act.gov.au/magistrates/tribunals/rtt/decisions/pearson.htm


"AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES TRIBUNAL ) NO: RT 2359 of 2006

RE: DANNY PEARSON & CHERYL PEARSON
(Applicant/Tenant)

AND: COMMISSIONER FOR HOUSING IN THE ACT

(Respondent/Lessor)

DECISION

Decision : 19 November 2007


1. That the respondent – Commissioner for Housing in the ACT, is to pay an amount of $16,500.00 to the Applicants – Danny Pearson & Cheryl Pearson, within 7 days of the date of this Order.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Re: Premises at 7/5 Tennison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT

BACKGROUND

1) The Respondent is the lessor and the Applicants are the tenants of premises at 7/5 Tennison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT. The Residential Tenancy Agreement between the parties in relation to those premises commenced in December 1995.

2) Rick Kennedy and Elizabeth Daniels are residents of a neighbouring property, 8/5 Tennison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT. The Respondent is the lessor of that property. Rick Kennedy and Elizabeth Daniels and their nine children have lived in their premises from about January 2005. Ms Elizabeth Daniels is the tenant. Residential Tenancies Tribunal notes that not all of the children live in the premises all of the time, and that for a period of time the children had been removed from the premises by child protection.

3) The Applicants made application to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal on 23 November 2006, for damages for breach of contract by the Respondent, constituted by the lessor’s failure to prevent conduct by the Daniels and their family that interfered with the quiet enjoyment of their own premises by the Applicants, and relocation to another premises. The written application specified damages as the cost of veterinary services following the deliberate injury of their dog by one of their neighbour’s children. The Residential Tenancies Tribunal pointed out to the tenants that compensation could only be awarded where the Residential Tenancies Act 1997 specifically provided for it. The Applicants then broadened their application to ask for compensation for breach of the ACT Housing’s obligation as lessor to ensure quiet enjoyment of their premises. No specific amount or basis for compensation was put forward.


EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS BY PARTIES

At the hearing on 30 March 2007 Mr Pearson gave evidence that he and his wife were constantly disturbed by the conduct of their neighbours, the Daniels/Kennedy family. This disturbance took the form of, inter alia:

i) Children running across the roof of the Pearson’s home;

ii) Children spraying Mr Pearson’s car with green paint, while it was parked in his driveway;

iii) Children entering his property and removing flowers and tanbark from his garden – these were thrown onto the road;

iv) Children setting the fence between the two premises alight;

v) Geoffrey Daniels, the child of the tenant, entered the Pearson’s premises and caused deliberate injury to their pet dog. Such injuries resulted in the dog being put down;

vi) The tenant threatening the life of Mrs Pearson;

vii) Constant loud noise emanating from 8/5 Tennison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT, such noise either:

(1) took the form of abusive language and shouting and other noise from generally violent domestic disputes between the tenant and/or her children and Mr Kennedy, or,

(2) was loud and aggressive, often foul or obscene shouting from persons who were intoxicated.

2) Mr Pearson stated that he had been forced to bring the matter before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal as a result of ACT Housing’s failure to take any action against the occupants of 8/5 Tennison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT, despite many complaints being made by Mr and Mrs Pearson and other residents of the complex. Mr Pearson gave evidence that he had made the first complaint about the conduct of the Daniels’ children to ACT Housing in October 2005.

3) Mrs Pearson did not attend the hearing on 30 March 2007, the Residential Tenancies Tribunal was informed by Mr Daniels that his wife was upset and made ill by the stress caused by the conduct of the occupants of 8/5 Tennison-Woods Circuit, Bonython ACT, and of appearing before the Residential Tenancies Tribunal. Mrs Pearson made a written submission to the Residential Tenancies Tribunal; this was received on 10 April 2007. In this submission she states:

a) The Daniels and their extended family have terrorized and intimidated myself and other tenants of the complex.

b) That since making a written complaint to ACT Housing with regards to the injury to and subsequent death of her dog she has had violent and threatening behaviour from Libby Daniels to the stage that we were forced to take out a restraining order to protect ourselves."



And It goes on and on. It good to see that they were compensated albeit by the tax payer.


"the Residential Tenancies Tribunal orders the Respondent to pay the Applicants an amount of $6,500.00 for personal distress, or pain and suffering, and $10,000 for direct interference with the reasonable, peace, comfort and privacy of the Applicants.

ORDER

The Respondent is to pay an amount of $16 500.00 to the Applicants within 7 days of the date of this Order."
 
I wonder if the same judgment would have been handed down if the landlord was an individual and whether any type of insurance would cover this. (Probably not as it seems the landlord was informed 2 years prior and did nothing).
 
Hmmmm......

Since Jan '05 their life has been a misery....and the Landlord has been ordered to pay $ 16.5K for the 3 years of misery they've been through.

That's $ 15 a day to put up with the misery.

The Law does not handle ferals well. They get away with murder before the official wheels of motion kick in. Even then, the article doesn't say what controls - if any, the offenders were subjected to.

For me, my peace of mind and wellbeing is worth more than $ 15 a day.

Personally, I would of moved....and let the ferals destroy the place.

I suppose that's one of the nice things about being wealthy. Move to a nice neighbourhood where the ferals can't afford. Everyone thinks it, but few say it.
 
Wonder if they still have the Kennedy-Daniels family still have their taxpayer-funded housing? Probably, because nobody else would have them and their nine kids as tenants :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top